1

W . A. No. 430 /1 0
9/07/14
Shri A. P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1
to 5.
Calling in question tenability of an order dated 15.03.10
passed by the Writ Court in W. P. No. 13879/09, this appeal has
been filed by the appellant under Section 2 of (Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya Ke Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,
2005.
Facts in brief goes to show that appellant is the proprietor
of a firm named Goldie Gas Agency situated in Khalwara Bazar,
Kymore, Distt. Katni.
Petitioner was granted an agency for distribution of
L. P. G. cylinders by M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for
the area in question. However, when the Indian Oil Corporation
issued an advertisement for granting dealership for distribution
of

L.

P.

G.

cylinders

in

the

area

covered

by

Tahsil

Vijayraghavgarh, petitioner objected to the same and came out

with a case that under the scheme formulated for grant of L. P. G.
dealership vide Annexure P-4 available in the record of the writ
petition, once a dealership is in existence in a particular area,
then within the range of 15 kms. , no further dealership can be
granted.
It is argued that as the petitioner's dealership is in
existence, the Indian Oil Corporation cannot grant any dealership
to any person within the range of 15 kms. and as the policy of the
Central Govt. as contained in Annexure P-4 is violated,
indulgence into the matter was sought for.

The learned Writ

Court found that petitioner is a dealer with Bharat Petroleum

Corporation Ltd. and

if the Indian Oil Corporation is also

establishing a dealership, petitioner has no right to challenge the

same and the challenge made by the petitioner was quashed.
Shri A. P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant invited
our attention to the Annexure P-4 available in the record of the
writ petition and tried to argue that once the scheme prohibits
grant of such a dealership, respondents are duty-bound to follow
the same and cannot grant any dealership contrary to the
aforesaid stipulation in the scheme.
Shri Aditya Adhikari refuted the aforesaid and referred to
the agreement executed by the petitioner and argued that in the
agreement executed by the petitioner itself, the petitioner had
agreed that he shall have no objection in the matter of grant of
dealership to any other person.
Referring to Clause 1 (b) (ii) of the agreement Annexure
P-3, Shri Aditya Adhikari says that once the petitioner has agreed
to the same, he cannot have any grievance in the matter. That
apart, Shri Aditya Adhikari points out that similar challenge
made has already been rejected by a Division Bench of this Court
at Gwalior in W. A. No. 114/14 and, therefore, no indulgence can
be made in the matter.
We have considered the rival contentions and we find that
the same question has been considered by the Gwalior Bench of
this Court in W. A. No. 114/14 in the case of Maa Narmada
Indane Vs. Union of India and others and similar challenge has
been rejected in the following manner:The Writ Court dismissed the writ
petition on the ground that there was no
condition in the agreement with the appellant
that no other person should be granted
dealership of LPG. Petitioner/appellant was
granted the dealership of LPG under a

contract. Except the appellant is running the

dealership in accordance with the terms and
conditions

of

the

contract.

In

such

circumstances, the appellant cannot challenge

the action of the respondent-Company to
grant dealership to other person on the
ground that it would affect his business
interest.
In our opinion, the Writ Court has rightly
exercised discretion.

We do not find any

merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.

We find the aforesaid decision rendered by the Co-ordinate
Bench to be applicable in the present case also and we see no
reason to take a different view. That apart, under Clause 1 (b) (ii)
of the agreement entered into by the petitioner and M/s Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd, petitioner has accepted for the
following conditions :(ii)

The Corporation reserves the right,

without any reference to or consent of the

Distributor, to appoint one or more additional
distributors in the same territory referred to
in Clause 1(a) above and such additional
distributor or distributors shall be entitled to
make sales of Bharatgas in the same territory
without any objection from the Distributor
and the Distributor shall not be entitled to
claim

any

over-riding

remuneration,

commission or allowance for the purpose.

Once, it is the condition agreed to by the petitioner, she

cannot turn around from this condition and seek benefit contrary
to the agreement entered into by her.

As far as the policy

Annexure P-4 is concerned, it is a policy formulated by the

Government of India and the same is a non-statutory scheme in
the form of guidelines and policy, it is not enforceable by a writ
of mandamus and we see no reason to interfere into the matter in
the facts of the present case.
Accordingly, finding no error in the order passed by the
learned Writ court warranting reconsideration, the writ appeal is
therefore dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon)
JUDGE
Vy*

(Alok Verma)
JUDGE